VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Meeting a group of major U.S. donors to Catholic charitable works, Pope Benedict XVI asked them to pray “for the freedom of Christians to proclaim the Gospel and bring its light to the urgent moral issues of our time.”The pope met April 21 with about 80 members of the Papal Foundation, who presented him with an $8.5-million donation that will be used to fund scholarships and 105 Catholic projects in close to 50 countries.
The projects include the construction of five schools in Egypt, where Christian leaders and human rights activists have been concerned about ensuring religious freedom as the country transitions to a democratic government.
While the pope did not refer to any specific conflicts involving religious freedom, his remarks to the American group also may have alluded to current tensions in the United States over the right of Catholic bishops and institutions to act according to Catholic teaching in matters of adoption and health insurance coverage.
Pope Benedict also paid tribute to the “historic role played by women in building up the church in America,” as exemplified by Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha and Blessed Marianne Cope, two North Americans who will be canonized in October.
The pope spoke just three days after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that it had ordered the reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the main U.S. organization of heads of religious congregations. In the announcement, the congregation said, “the Holy See acknowledges with gratitude the great contributions of women religious to the church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by religious over the years.”
Pope Benedict thanked members of the Papal Foundation for their support for the church’s work in evangelization, education and development.
Bishop Joseph A. Pepe of Las Vegas, secretary of the foundation’s executive board, told Catholic News Service that the idea behind the foundation, which was established in 1988, was to help the pope in his support of Catholics in poor countries. “Every year the pope gives a list of what he’d be interested in” and the foundation evaluates requests it receives in accordance with that list.
Most of the foundation members are “leaders in their communities,” and give generously to their parishes and dioceses, but they also want to assist with the universal work of the church, he said.
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell of Dallas, a member of the board of trustees, said the foundation’s Stewards of St. Peter each pledge $1 million to the foundation and promise to pay it within 10 years.
“It is admirable to see how many people are involved in this, helping the church promote programs of evangelization all over the world. I do believe it is one of the great unwritten stories of charity in our day, especially in the United States,” Bishop Farrell said. [Source]
In other news on the religious freedom front – Todd Starnes of Fox News reports:
The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.
According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”
“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”
He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.
28 comments
I’m confused. Your Bible says that gays must be put to death because they are an abomination yet it seems that you’re settling for them to be legally disenfranchised from various rights.
Is it sort of a compromise? Like you won’t demand that homosexuals big stoned to death as long as they’re not treated like people? If so how did you arrive at it?
Sir or madam,
The Bible also says that Jesus lifted the death penalty (see John 8 for the woman caught in adultery – incidentally, she was admonished to not continue her behavior); Jesus did not, however, modify the ban on same-sex relationships. There is no right to rent a church hall from which to be disenfranchised. If you are referring to a broader “right” of marriage, then if the Church’s (and civil society’s) criterion for marriage goes from the potential for procreating and raising society’s future, i.e. children (something that is a small possibility even for the intentionally childless, the infertile, and the elderly) to simple consent, the Church (and the state) will be put in the bizarre position of licensing peoples’ feelings for each other. Is the desired goal for the state to ratify peoples’ affections? If so, how did you arrive at it?
Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis
>The Bible also says that Jesus lifted the death penalty (see John 8 for the woman caught in adultery – incidentally, she was admonished to not continue her behavior);
No, he prevented a mob from stoning a woman to death for committing a sin that half the men there had probably committed themselves. At any rate you do know that the Church continued to kill homosexuals well after Jesus right? I guess they didn’t get the memo?
And how does that make any sense? It was once okay to kill homosexuals but then it wasn’t? Why? What changed? Your god was wrong in the Old Testament? How can that be? Your god is perfect right?
>Jesus did not, however, modify the ban on same-sex relationships.
So instead of killing them Jesus wants you to make gays second class citizens until they have sexual urges and affections that he approves of?
Strange, why does your god make gay people if it doesn’t like them?
>There is no right to rent a church hall from which to be disenfranchised.
So if someone doesn’t want to rent a church hall to a Black couple that’d be okay? How about a Jewish couple?
>If you are referring to a broader “right” of marriage,
Why did you put right in quotes? Marriage isn’t a right? What is it then? A privilege?
>then if the Church’s (and civil society’s) criterion for marriage goes from the potential for procreating and raising society’s future, i.e. children
So childless couples can’t get married?
> (something that is a small possibility even for the intentionally childless, the infertile, and the elderly)
Infertile means you can’t have children so no, not a possibility and you seem to be suggesting that therefor they cannot be married.
And since people can and do have children without being married I’m pretty sure marriage isn’t all that necessary for procreation.
>to simple consent, the Church (and the state) will be put in the bizarre position of licensing peoples’ feelings for each other.
No, they’d be performing a marriage ceremony, two men getting married is no more bizarre than a man and woman if you realize and understand they are all people.
See that’s pretty much the end of the debate for me, they are people and must be given equal access to all things.
> Is the desired goal for the state to ratify peoples’ affections? If so, how did you arrive at it?
No, not at all. Let me be clear, if a priest doesn’t want to marry two dudes, fine there cannot be any force to compel him to. As long as he is not being paid to do his job by the public he can be as bigoted / obeying his god as he likes.
However the state must recognize two dudes or ladies getting married because they are people and you can’t say to one set of people you may have these rights and privileges and to another you may not because you are different from the norm. Marriage grants certain rights and privileges and those must be granted to all.
I arrived at this because it’s pretty self-evident that people, even gay ones, are people.
Or is that wrong?
Don’t feed the troll!!
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am a troll, I’m not making any points on topic at all! It’s best to ignore people who not only have different opinions but backs them up, it’s the only way you’ll ever be right all the time.
(((“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,”)))
After I finish writing, I hope to have time also to read the other comments.
Anyway Jeff! This is so silly and “IT” is as bad as when “a hate crime just for gay people” was strongly proposed and certain people in government approved of “IT’. “IT” should be wrong to physically hard any body. Right?
Before our new government took over there was a guy in our church (who will remain nameless cause he also is a child of god) and said that he would like to see some priest stop these people from getting married if they were members in that church. Long story short, three elections later, he is out of office and the good priest concerned was charged with child abuse and the church is NOW sold and/or being sold in Canada.
Another long story short, as far as I know, all of Canada’s 10 Provinces exept for “ONE” somewhere in “The Great While North”, same-sex-marriage is legal.
Nothing surprises me anymore and although our Right Honourable Prime Minister says that prostitution is wrong, nevertheless our province officially NOW made “IT” legal for “a lady of the night” to hire body guards.
I hear ya! So what are ya doing about “IT” Victor? 🙂
Jeff! When me, myself and i have been convinced by our new government that in reality “The Sacrament of Marriage” is no longer simply between a “Man and a Woman”, I’ll be giving them the finger and let GOD take care of HIS OWN Business. In other words, I believe that Jesus would not want me to fight and destroy my reality cells over “IT” so when our government who is the people by the people says that GOD agrees with same-sex-marriages as being equal with U>S, what else can “I” do but give all concerned the finger?
“I’M” sorry but this so called 97% so called god will play Thomas and remove his wedding ring from my finger and place “IT” around my neck and my 3% alien so called Jesus body cells can use “IT” to hang me if they so chose to do but I will not wear my ring on the same finger as these people do.
In closing, my question is; In doing so, will that also mean that “I’M” discriminating against gays and lesbians and what will happen to me? 🙁
For what “IT” is worth, that’s how “I” see “IT” for NOW!
Peace be with ya.
Victor
“Marriage grants certain rights and privileges and those must be granted to all.”
For clarity’s sake before I comment, I wonder if you could enumerate what these rights and privileges are and why they are withheld from singletons and unmarried couples.
>what these rights and privileges are and why they are withheld from singletons and unmarried couples.
Taxes, medical visitation and decisions mostly.
Yes! I am a troll
Sir or madam,
All valid questions. To your thoughtful points:
“continued to kill homosexuals well after Jesus”. Yes, people have continued to do all sorts of things that Jesus explicitly and implicitly forbid, up to this very day. It does not mean that He did not do what He did – in this case, de-fang the death penalty without explicitly overthrowing it. Everything Jesus did was a teaching moment.
Regarding the apparent change between Old and New Testament, the Source of space and time has the prerogative to enforce or not enforce His own law as He sees fit. It is perfectly feasible that God might have been taking an extremely punitive approach early on, then lightening that approach (via Jesus) at a later time when He deemed His chosen people were at a certain level of societal maturity, to see if they would do the right thing without such stringent threats. So why would God take such a horrifyingly punitive approach early on to male same-sex activity? First of all, for a primitive people, that kind of activity was especially prone to the spread of disease, and God may not have thought the tiny nation of Israel could risk such an outbreak. Second, that kind of activity says that sex need not have anything to do with procreation, a notion that also dooms a populace – the aging societies of Europe and parts of the United States demonstrate that today.
And to turn your question around, how does atheism label killing anyone “wrong”? After all, if we are all simply complex chemical accidents, then how does the human individual have any inherent value? I might like the idea of banning murder out of self-interest (a society that is okay with murder ultimately threatens me), but I do not have a basis for calling it objectively wrong. If secular humanist philosophy does consider killing objectively wrong, then did Stalin not get the memo?
——————————————————————————-
Why does God make gay people? Well, why does God make diabetics? God gives some people very heavy crosses in life (heavier than I could bear). Why does He allow suffering of any magnitude at all? Because if love (especially of God Himself) is the name of the game, you cannot have love without sacrifice, and you cannot have sacrifice without suffering (of at least a minimal degree). “Love” without sacrifice is simply gushy feelings or dependence. Since nothing is external to God, He has to allow suffering – we cannot band together with Him against some external threat.
Also, your question presumes that God does not like homosexual orientation; actually, it is only acting on that orientation that He forbids. (Note that He forbids any number of actions that spring from heterosexual orientation, as well.) If you are tempted to wonder if there is a difference, we restrain ourselves from acting on our dispositions all the time.
Further, until science definitively establishes whether biology or psychology is the basis of homosexuality, we have some uncertainty as to whether God “makes” gay people, or whether their environment produces the effect.
Finally, not being eligible for some aspects of the human experience does not make one a “second-class citizen”. Just because a color-blind person cannot be a fashion designer or a film color technician does not mean he/she is less of a person, even though he/she, through no fault of his/her own, cannot take an opportunity available to others.
——————————————————————————–
Conflating racial or religious discrimination and same-sex issues is a common mistake. The difference is that renting to a couple of a certain race, or even of most religious persuasions, does not put a church in the position of appearing to celebrate something contradictory to its own teaching. Heterosexual couples of any race and most religions (Satanism, for example, wouldn’t make the cut) demonstrate the man-woman union the church holds marriage to be, whereas a same-sex couple does not. If the local secular humanist ethical society rents out its space to people in the community, should it be required to extend that same offer to Westboro Baptist Church?
——————————————————————————–
“Marriage isn’t a right? “ I think the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a right, even for those who view it purely as a civil contract. We ban civil contracts between consenting adults all the time. We ban relatives from getting married. We ban trios of people from getting married. We ban prostitution. We ban two business owners from colluding to raise their prices. So on and so forth…
——————————————————————————–
“So childless couples can’t get married?” That’s why I put the word “potential” in there, because they still plan to have a lifelong relationship where procreation is possible, whether through change of mind or “accident”. And the usage of the term “infertile”, both commonly and medically, means “extremely unlikely to reproduce”, not “0% possibility of reproduction”. Many people have been diagnosed as infertile and then unexpectedly achieved pregnancy.
“And since people can and do have children without being married I’m pretty sure marriage isn’t all that necessary for procreation.” Absolutely, but they also don’t have the promise-bound household society considers best for children’s upbringing. This point is getting the issue backwards.
——————————————————————————–
“No, they’d be performing a marriage ceremony”. I’m afraid I have to differ – civil marriage would be exactly the state issuing a license to two people for saying “I love you” in front of a justice of the peace or minister. If a ceremony is all that is desired, there in nothing in current law prohibiting that for any two (or more) people; in fact, numerous gay couples held commitment ceremonies before there was talk of same-sex marriage legalization. The state simply would not issue a license recognizing it as a marriage.
If the “rights and privileges” you refer to are things like hospital visitation rights, those can be legislated separately or handled by power of attorney. If the “rights and privileges” you refer to are things like tax breaks, those breaks were designed to help support couples who might procreate little financial dependents who bring no income to the household; those breaks represent an investment by society in its own future.
————————————————————-
Of course people, gay people included, are people and deserving of dignity; the Catholic Catechism instructs that gay people are to be accepted with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and “unjust discrimination” is to be avoided, though the Church also maintains none of what we are debating constitutes unjust discrimination. That aside, our society denies people things available to others all the time without demoting those people to sub-human status. Men can’t join sororities. The color-blind can’t be pilots. The wheelchair-bound can’t be police officers. Twenty year-olds can’t legally drink. Felons, presumably even non-violent ones, cannot legally own guns. A white person cannot claim rights to a minority scholarship. The examples are innumerable.
I very much appreciate your genuine concern for people, and I appreciate the vigorous discussion. But there are much larger issues involved than first appear when it comes to claims of rights.
Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis
“Taxes, medical visitation and decisions mostly.”
But I can get all those things via other legal means with various friends and relatives. (And by “taxes” I understand you to mean “tax exemptions.”)
So again, what are the privileges and rights that are in a marriage that are different from a legal contract?
>But I can get all those things via other legal means
Sure and you can get them via marriage as well, a lot easier.
See what you’re suggesting is “separate but equal” but that is never equal.
Unless you insist gays are not people you cannot shut them out of rights and privileges enjoyed by people.
Are gays people? Yes or no?
> Everything Jesus did was a teaching moment.
Your Jesus, not a very good teacher, none of it seem to take, bit of a failure your god.
>First of all, for a primitive people, that kind of activity was especially prone to the spread of disease,
So what you’re saying is that it was okay to kill gays before because they were diseased! Yes all sickness back then came from the gays!
That’s perfectly sensible and very loving of your god. Guess telling people to kill gays is easier than explaining that you should boil water and wash your hands around food.
>And to turn your question around, how does atheism label killing anyone “wrong”?
Atheism doesn’t label anything, it means there are no such things as gods, it says nothing else.
>He has to allow suffering – we cannot band together with Him against some external threat.
AHAHAH! Oh the arrogance of theists! Like your god is a drill sergeant toughening up his squad to go over the top! And that’s why he makes gay people and commands his believers to kill them and then later on just discriminate against them. Makes perfect sense.
Hang on, why didn’t your god just make the world perfect? No, don’t tell me about magic fruit and talking snakes, that nonsense must have been part of the plan because it happened right? The only explanation that makes sense is that your god is very bored. Or doesn’t exist, guess which one makes more sense?
>Also, your question presumes that God does not like homosexual orientation; actually, it is only acting on that orientation that He forbids.
Ah yes, the sadist god who makes gays gay but then tells them not to be gay or it will punish them. So they spend a whole life in miserable repression never knowing love or the affection that everyone around them enjoys. Gosh, what a loving sensible god you have!
>Further, until science definitively establishes whether biology or psychology is the basis of homosexuality, we have some uncertainty as to whether God “makes” gay people, or whether their environment produces the effect.
Your god made people? Your god made the environment? Well then your god made gay, the end. See you can go on about free choice all you like but it all leads back to your god and its creation.
>Finally, not being eligible for some aspects of the human experience does not make one a “second-class citizen”.
Sure, but being denied rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens does.
>Conflating racial or religious discrimination and same-sex issues is a common mistake.
No, it’s telling someone they’re not allowed to do something because of an arbitrary factor that is not recognized by the law. Law does not see color or gender, it sees only people.
>We ban relatives from getting married.
Because we can show that to be harmful. Show me how gay marriage is going to lead to birth defects and you’ll have an argument. Oh and in how many States can cousins marry?
>We ban trios of people from getting married.
Well if three dudes want to get married than there will be a problem.
>We ban prostitution.
Yes! Gay marriage is just like hookers!
>We ban two business owners from colluding to raise their prices.
And price fixing! So gays can’t marry because of price fixing!
I think you’re reaching here.
>Many people have been diagnosed as infertile and then unexpectedly achieved pregnancy.
Then they were not infertile but if they were, by your “logic” they should not be allowed to marry.
> society considers best for children’s upbringing. This point is getting the issue backwards.
Oh, so society decides how to raise children does it? So single parents should be what then?
Sorry but an unmarried couple is no different than a married one, your superstitions without standing.
>The state simply would not issue a license recognizing it as a marriage.
And that was wrong and illegal unless you think gays are not people.
>If the “rights and privileges” you refer to are things like hospital visitation rights, those can be legislated separately or handled by power of attorney.
Separate but equal, nope, not right in the South in the 50s and not right here and now.
>Of course people, gay people included, are people and deserving of dignity;
Ah, but they just can’t enter a legal contract, must repress themselves and know that if they ever experience love your god will torture them forever and ever!
You say they are people but you don’t want them treated like people. You should figure out where you stand on the issue, you can’t have it both ways.
>The color-blind can’t be pilots.
Gay marriage will crash planes?
>The wheelchair-bound can’t be police officers.
Gay marriage will let criminals escape?
>Twenty year-olds can’t legally drink.
Gay marriage will throw up all over the living room floor?
>Felons, presumably even non-violent ones, cannot legally own guns.
Gay marriage will shoot someone?
>A white person cannot claim rights to a minority scholarship.
Uh because White people aren’t the minority? Not sure what that has to do with gay marriage, this may be the silliest of the lot.
>The examples are innumerable.
They sure are but you can’t seem to provide any that make sense.
It’s simple, you hate the gays (or them being gay, whatever) and you want society to share your fear and loathing of this “abomination” so you and the rest of the self-righteous do everything they can to disenfranchise the gays as an expression of your bigotry.
What makes me lol is how you try and justify it with insanity and inanity like “colour blind people can’t be pilots!”.
” >But I can get all those things via other legal means
Sure and you can get them via marriage as well, a lot easier.
See what you’re suggesting is “separate but equal” but that is never equal.”
No, I’m not. You didn’t answer my question. Why does marriage consist of an easy way of conferring these benefits, which singletons must get through a separate manner but are not considered equal to marriage. For example, one can get medical visitation rights to a person with whom one is not married, but that’s not a marriage. Why is that? What is your definition of “marriage” and why does it have a privileged position as opposed to these other contracts?
Prayer will help the situation in the U.S., no question about it. And, hi Salvage! I know this one will infuriate you and you’ll rant off about it, sorry in advance for your time.
>Prayer will help the situation in the U.S.,
So how does that work? Your god does nothing until enough mortals asks it to intervene? If its the right thing to do why doesn’t your god just do it?
Why does marriage consist of an easy way of conferring these benefits, which singletons must get through a separate manner but are not considered equal to marriage.
I’m not sure what you mean here by “why” …. or did you just answered your own question… ?
>For example, one can get medical visitation rights to a person with whom one is not married, but that’s not a marriage.
You get it automatically with marriage, otherwise you have to hire a lawyer, fill out a bunch of paper work and then haul it to the hospital if you want to see your loved one.
Are you really having trouble understanding the difference here between simple and difficult? Is that the issue? You just want to make life harder for gays?
>What is your definition of “marriage” and why does it have a privileged position as opposed to these other contracts?
Marriage is a contract between two people that grants certain rights and privileges recognized by the state. You cannot tell one set of people they can enter into this contract and another they cannot because you / your god doesn’t like them.
It’s not privileged above other contracts and that has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter that those right and privileges can be granted in different ways, everyone is equal or they are not under the law.
It’s that simple, are gays people? Are they citizens? Yes and yes? So then they can enter marriage contracts regardless of your fear and loathing.
Sir or madam,
Regarding your comments:
“Your Jesus, not a very good teacher, none of it seem to take, bit of a failure your god.” Despite the efforts of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, as well as their predecessors in previous centuries, a stubborn supermajority still believes in a higher power. I guess Messrs. Hitchens and Dawkins must have been intellectually lacking, as demonstrated by the failure of people to follow the principles they teach. I do understand some of the success they have gained, as atheism is a psychologically comforting belief, allowing its adherents to construct their own moral code and have no worries of consequences after this life.
“…because they were diseased!” Note that I said that kind of activity was “especially prone” to the spread of disease, not the sole source of it. I will not expound on the point, since it would be a bit graphic.
“…telling people to kill gays is easier than explaining that you should boil water and wash your hands around food.” Actually, the Mosaic law had a number of rules about food and washing, but the transmission mechanisms of STDs do not lend themselves to being remedied by washing – avoiding infection in the first place was the only reliable method.
“Atheism doesn’t label anything…” Sure atheism labels – it labels existence as having no inherent meaning, rather at most having the emotional value that individuals put into it. Thus atheism, theoretically, relieves itself of the need to make any other claims, though given the prevalence of liberal social mores among atheists, I would argue in practice it does.
“…Makes perfect sense.” Rather than envisioning God as the transcendant, all-encompassing being He is, you seem to picture Him as one entity among many entities, a sort of superpowered, and capricious, big brother for humanity. One of the most fundamental mistakes atheism makes is evaluating the Intelligence that created space and time as a peer. A more apt analogy would be the understanding of a four year-old compared to his parents. When you were four, your parents allowed you to trip and skin your knee. (Negligence!) They made you eat gross things and go to bed at a certain time. (Tyranny!) They even let strangers in white coats stick you with sharp objects. (Sadism!) In all this, you could not begin to fathom any good coming from it. Yet, the gulf of understanding between a four year-old and his parents is a hairline crack compared to that between humans and God.
“Like your god is a drill sergeant toughening up his squad…” No, I said that suffering is an inevitable result of sacrifice, and sacrifice is a requirement for love. And love is ultimately what the whole thing is about.
“…why didn’t your god just make the world perfect?” Actually, Christianity holds that God did make the world perfect, and some act of free will by the original humans introduced a tear in that perfection. (Regarding “magic fruit” and “talking snakes”, not all, or even a majority of, Christians are biblical literalists – most hold the description of Adam’s and Eve’s lives to be symbolic representations of some real event. Pope John Paul II noted that evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory for a Christian to hold, though God’s action to imprint His image somewhere during that process is what produced the first true humans.) If God does not exist, why did the cold, impersonal, random universe create pain, competition, and death? Why wouldn’t nature set itself up to evolve toward less and less of those things? Why can’t nature do a better job of optimizing itself?
“…the sadist god who makes gays gay but then tells them not to be gay…” For the theist, everyone is given some trial, which gives the opportunity to choose sacrifice for God rather than self-indulgence, i.e. to love God. (Try telling your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend sometime that you are done denying yourself anything for him/her, but not to worry, you still love him/her. See if he/she believes you.) For the atheist, those trials are simply evidence that the presumably rational universe did an incompetent job of organizing itself. Why did that sadist, impersonal universe create diabetics and surround them with sugary things that they cannot indulge? Why did it give humans a taste for alcohol, even though it is destructive to human life?
“never knowing love or the affection that everyone around them enjoys”. Actually, there is nothing in church doctrine or secular law that bans close emotional bonds between two people, nor having common finances, and so on. So, does “never knowing love and affection” really mean “not having sex”?
“Your god made the environment?” I was referring not to the natural environment, but their social/family environment, which is really the sum of the (free will) choices that the people surrounding that person make. Since God does not make our choices for us, if homosexuality is produced by something in the social/family environment, then God does not “make” homosexuals. (Note that neither case implies homosexuality is chosen.)
“Law does not see color or gender”. The Voting Rights Act requires that congressional districts that are majority minority may not be changed during redistricting such that the new district loses that majority minority demographic, regardless of what population shifts alone would suggest for new districts. Law gives women the sole say on the abortion decision, even though the child…ahem, sorry, fetus…is genetically half the father’s. These are only two examples – law sees color and gender all the time.
“Because we can show that” (close relatives getting married) “to be harmful. Show me how gay marriage is going to lead to birth defects and you’ll have an argument. Oh and in how many States can cousins marry?”
First of all, what if close relatives who wanted to get married either (a) signed a legally enforceable pledge saying they would bear all costs related to any genetic diseases in their children or (b) signed a legally enforceable pledge not to have kids? Would you oppose their marriage still? If so, why? After all, they are consenting people. (Make sure you don’t cite the “ewww” factor as a reason.) What about regular (non-related) couples where one of the pair has a known genetic disease that can be passed to children? Since such children might cost society, should those with a defective gene be banned from marriage?
Regarding gay marriage, of course it does not produce birth defects, which was not the point of the example. The issue with gay marriage is actually that it produces no births, defective or otherwise, i.e. it implicitly says that marriage and sex need have nothing to do with procreation. Every reinforcement of the consequence-free sexual ethos of the West shows such private decisions do have public ramifications – demographically stagnating Europe and the American Northeast will struggle more and more to care for and pay for their aging populations.
In how many states can cousins marry? I don’t know, but I would hazard a guess that the number of states in which people closer than third cousins can marry is probably smaller than the number of states in which same-sex couples can marry.
“Well if three dudes want to get married than there will be a problem….hookers…price fixing”. Why would “three dudes” marrying be a problem from your perspective? After all, they are people, and you are denying them something they consensually want. And no, I was not saying gay marriage is the same as prostitution and price fixing. You are making the argument that adult people should not be denied something they consent on, and I was offering examples that society keeps people, for valid reasons, from undertaking consensual activities all the time.
“Then they were not infertile…” Ask a doctor sometime if he/she has diagnosed a few patients as “infertile”. Then ask him/her if he/she means that person has not even a 0.00001% chance of achieving pregnancy. In actual practice, the term is not used as the absolute you maintain it is. But, now that you mention it, even a 100% sterile opposite-gender couple can adopt and provide something critical that a same-sex couple cannot – a living example of an adult heterosexual relationship, from which the child (90%+ likely to be heterosexual himself/herself) can learn.
“So single parents should be what then?” Many single parents make heroic efforts, day in and day out, in raising their kids. Some single parents, who often got there thanks to the libertine sexual ethic promoted by secularism, do a very inadequate job of parenting. However, I think even the most self-sacrificing single parent would tell you that it would be easier and better for a mother and father to be in the household. Yes, sometimes the ideal of a loving father and mother in the household does not happen (such as abusive households), but that is not an argument for society licensing other relationships.
“Sorry but an unmarried couple is no different than a married one, your superstitions without standing.” Actually, there is a big difference – the latter have made a public, lifelong commitment that legally binds them together. That promise adds a big reinforcement to the stability of that household, which is in society’s interest for raising children, i.e. society’s future.
“…if they ever experience love your god will torture them forever and ever!” Again, nothing bans strong emotional bonds between people, so I think you are saying “love” when you really mean “sex”.
Looking beyond this specific topic, your statement about God torturing people indicates a common misconception – that God sends people to Hell. Actually, people choose Hell. Naturally, your next question will be “Why would people choose Hell?” Because they insist, against both good advice and even their own conscience, that whatever they are choosing instead of God will be Heaven for them; unfortunately, it’s too late when they find out differently, and realizing what they could have had but now cannot is the truly hellish part. (Also, the phrase “forever and ever” betrays a common misunderstanding of eternity. Dinesh D’Souza says people typically think of eternity as “1000000 A. D.”, but in reality, eternity is simply outside of time, i.e. past, present, and future are all the same thing.)
Regarding your objections to my various examples using the color-blind, the wheelchair-bound, twenty year-olds, etc.: I apologize that apparently the common thread in all of those was not more self-evident. In each of those examples, the individual, who is assuredly a person and a “first-class citizen”, is missing something essential for the thing/opportunity/right that he/she aspires to. (Respectively, the missing elements are XX chromosomes, color vision to discriminate objects in the sky, physical ability, maturity, a history of obeying law, and racial affiliation. I note that you lodged no objection to my example that men cannot join sororities – does that mean you are dissatisfied with that manifestation of “separate but equal”?) Actually, the scholarship example is the most apt one, rather than the silliest. A white student, who may have every other qualification for the scholarship to a tee, through no fault of her own is missing one essential thing, the thing that is the very reason the scholarship was established – minority status. In a similar manner, a same-sex couple, who can be the nicest people anyone knows and all-around upstanding citizens, are missing the procreative capacity and opposite-gender example for children that is the entire reason society adopted marriage in the first place.
If you believe society adopted the institution of marriage for some other reason than the procreation and upbringing of children, then a statement of that would immensely help the gay marriage case. It isn’t passage of property (we’ve had wills to do that for centuries) and it isn’t because the church and/or state need to license peoples’ affections (unnecessary and even overbearing).
Your arguments are very emotional (a bit surprising, since atheism generally credits itself with level-headedness in a flighty, religious world), but obviously it’s a very personal topic for many people. I’m sorry you believe I “hate” anyone, but the term “hate” has largely lost its meaning due to overuse. Trust me, if I actually hated anyone, I wouldn’t use my real name on posts.
And with that, I will sign off this thread, leaving you the last word. It has been thought-provoking, but obviously this debate could go one interminably…or at least, until the Last Judgment.
God bless,
Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis
>as well as their predecessors in previous centuries, a stubborn supermajority still believes in a higher power.
Sure, people have been praying to gods for about 15-10,000 years, yours for the last 1,700 or so.
And your point in regards to Jesus being rather useless is what?
>allowing its adherents to construct their own moral code and have no worries of consequences after this life.
Oh. So you’re on of those people who is only good a decent because your afraid of your god’s punishment?
>that kind of activity was “especially prone” to the spread of disease, not the sole source of it.
It’s not. Straight sex is prone to disease, eating is prone to diseases, breathing the air is prone to disease.
>Actually, the Mosaic law had a number of rules about food and washing,
Nothing about boiling water or soap.
>but the transmission mechanisms of STDs do not lend themselves to being remedied by washing – avoiding infection in the first place was the only reliable method.
So by your “logic” straights shouldn’t have sex either. You do know that non-homosexuals get STDs too right?
“Atheism doesn’t label anything…” Sure atheism labels –
Nope. No gods, that’s all it means. If you’re life is so empty and your mind so hollow that you need Bronze Age mythology to find meaning that’s your sad problem. All atheism does is say there are no such things as gods, and you agree right up until YOUR god.
Muslim god? Is that real? Jewish god? That real? Mormon god? That real? American aboriginal gods, they real? Aztech? Greek? Roman? Chinese? Japanese? Thousands of gods that you don’t believe in for the same reasons but those reasons stop when it comes to your version of gods.
> a sort of superpowered, and capricious, big brother for humanity.
Well that’s only because I’ve read the Bible, well the bits in it about your god. It’s cute the way your kind ignores all that.
>A more apt analogy would be the understanding of a four year-old compared to his parents.
Once again, I’ve read all about your god, it’s not only insane but quite stupid. In Genesis for instance it seems to think the sun and the stars radically different things. Doesn’t seem to understand photosynthesis, completely missed evolution and the age of the cosmos and how long it took.
This whole “sky-daddy” thing is ridiculous and part of the endless dedicatory that theists need to keep their faith. So when your god flooded the planet, what lesson was that? What lesson does genocide teach?
>No, I said that suffering is an inevitable result of sacrifice, and sacrifice is a requirement for love.
How does a god sacrifice? Another aspect of your superstitions that makes no sense.
>And love is ultimately what the whole thing is about.
And if you don’t love your god it throws you into Hell forever right? That’s not love, that’s a psychopathic stalker.
>Actually, Christianity holds that God did make the world perfect, and some act of free will by the original humans introduced a tear in that perfection.
Then it didn’t make it perfect if “some act” could bring it all down. Dichotomies, it’s bizarre how you don’t notice them, is it choice or delusion?
>(Regarding “magic fruit” and “talking snakes”, not all, or even a majority of, Christians are biblical literalists –
Ah you’re one of those; pick and choose, this part of the Bible it true, this part isn’t! Who gets to pick I wonder?
most hold the description of Adam’s and Eve’s lives to be symbolic representations of some real event.
And that real event would be what?
>Pope John Paul II noted that evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory for a Christian to hold,
Well it does have the advantage of being proven true so like the child abuse the Vatican can no longer deny it but back in the day? Hoo boy what they said about Darwin! Heck they didn’t even like the American Revolution!
But the problem is, the one you will ignore is that your Bible mentions NOTHING of evolution, in fact the exact opposite. Your god claimed to have made all the critters as they are now.
Let me guess, that was just symbolic!
>though God’s action to imprint His image somewhere during that process is what produced the first true humans.)
There were a few groups of “first humans” our version was the only ones to survive so what’s up with that? Your god whacked them?
>If God does not exist, why did the cold, impersonal, random universe create pain, competition, and death?
The universe didn’t create anything, it just is. Pain’s biological advantages are obvious, competition is the engine of evolution or at least one of the pistons and death because matter doesn’t seem to be able to hold itself in any sort of shape forever.
But please, god of the gaps is so boring. Just because we are here that doesn’t mean Bronze Age mythology has any basis in reality.
>Why wouldn’t nature set itself up to evolve toward less and less of those things? Why can’t nature do a better job of optimizing itself?
Because nature is a slave to chemicals and physics as we all are.
>For the theist, everyone is given some trial, which gives the opportunity to choose sacrifice for God
Twaddle. You look at a crazy capricious world and to you make yourself feel better you tell yourself it’s all part of a plan twisting logic like a yoga pretzle.
And they have no choice, one again you contradict your own nonsense. They are made gay by your god, your god tells them not to be gay and if they are gay it will have them killed then thrown into Hell to be tortured forever and ever.
And the choice there is what exactly?
>Try telling your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend sometime that you are done denying yourself anything for him/her, but not to worry, you still love him/her. See if he/she believes you.
I would deny myself the last piece of cake for a chick, I would deny myself a spending money to make her happy, I would however not deny myself for her sake and if I did I would hope she would dump me because who wants to go out with a slave?
>the presumably rational universe did an incompetent job of organizing itself.
Who said the universe was rational? And atheism says nothing about astronomy or any other science. Do you really have trouble understanding that?
> Why did that sadist, impersonal universe create diabetics and surround them with sugary things that they cannot indulge?
You seem to think the universe has some sort of self-awareness, it doesn’t. Diabetics doesn’t interfere with reproduction thus that genetic flaw continues.
It you who thinks a god “designed” the pancreas that have to explain diabities. Oh, wait, I know, Adam and Eve (or whatever that was supposed to represent) they had perfect organs and then Eve talked to a snake and then it all went to Hell.
Weird your god being perfect having its perfection scotched by it’s own perfect creation. Does that sound perfect to you?
>Why did it give humans a taste for alcohol, even though it is destructive to human life?
Fun fact, we’ve been boozing it up since before we were humans, primates indulged in fermented fruit.
And it’s an squired taste and it’s not destructive at all. I have a bottle of beer in my fridge right now, should I be worried?
>Actually, there is nothing in church doctrine or secular law that bans close emotional bonds between two people, nor having common finances, and so on. So, does “never knowing love and affection” really mean “not having sex”?
Yeah, there’s that Catholic repression that makes me laugh out loud.
There is a rather strong connection between love and affection and sex, I know you think sex filthy but for the rest of us it’s quite nice.
> I was referring not to the natural environment, but their social/family environment, which is really the sum of the (free will) choices that the people surrounding that person make.
No, no and no. Your god made everything yes or no? Your god knows everything yes or no? So if the answer is yes then your god made EVERYTHING that every was and will be thus it even made the social / family environment.
I love the way theists try and make their god helpless when convinent.
>Since God does not make our choices for us, if homosexuality is produced by something in the social/family environment, then God does not “make” homosexuals. (Note that neither case implies homosexuality is chosen.)
Nope. Your god does it all, it’s one of the elements that makes your god unbelievable. See the Greeks and Romans avoided that by making their gods flawed. They could be tricked, they screwed up, they lost their tempers, they could be fools. Made more sense that the world was a reflection of their aspects.
But you guys had to go and make your god perfect than come up with some convoluted nonsense as to why its creation wasn’t perfect.
> These are only two examples – law sees color and gender all the time.
Two examples = all the time? No. The law in those cases are seeing minority for protection and enfranchisement into society. What you want is the exact opposite so it doesn’t work.
>First of all, what if close relatives who wanted to get married either (a) signed a legally enforceable pledge saying they would bear all costs related to any genetic diseases in their children or (b) signed a legally enforceable pledge not to have kids?
How would you “legally enforce” any of that? Is there a national movement for sisters and brothers to be allowed to marry? Are they marching on Washington?
See this is just more sputtering “If we let the fags get married than we have to let everyone marry anything!!!!”.
It’s silly, please stop, slippery slopes rarely are.
>Would you oppose their marriage still?
Of course, inbreeding is inherently dangerous to any children that could be born. There is a practical reason for opposition and there is no one demanding that they be allowed to marry.
>The issue with gay marriage is actually that it produces no births,
So what? If you get married you must have children? Outside of your ridiculous superstitions that’s not a law anywhere.
> Every reinforcement of the consequence-free sexual ethos of the West shows such private decisions do have public ramifications –
Gay marriage in Canada and many European nations for years now, what have the public ramifications been?
> demographically stagnating Europe and the American Northeast will struggle more and more to care for and pay for their aging populations.
So… gays can’t get married because they can’t have children and that means old people will starve to death in the street? Huh? You do know that unmarried gays don’t have children either right? Or are you saying that because there is gay marriage straight people will stop marrying the opposite-gender?
See this is how I know it’s all bigotry, only bigots grasp such flimsy straws to justify their nonsense.
>I don’t know, but I would hazard a guess that the number of states in which people closer than third cousins can marry is probably smaller than the number of states in which same-sex couples can marry.
Guess again.
>Why would “three dudes” marrying be a problem from your perspective?
Because a marriage contract is between two people, there is no contract for three.
>After all, they are people, and you are denying them something they consensually want.
I’m sorry, I guess I missed the three men wanting to get married rallies in Washington and the State capitals. Were they before or after the “I want to marry my sister” marches?
> You are making the argument that adult people should not be denied something they consent on,
No, I am making the argument that adult people should not be denied the right to marry. You are the one who keeps insisting that it’s just like other stuff that people aren’t allowed to do.
>do a very inadequate job of parenting.
Ha! Ha! Yes! “Regular” families do an excellent job! Yup, no abuse or negligence when you have a mom and a dad!
> but that is not an argument for society licensing other relationships.
I agree, which is why I didn’t bring it up. There is no argument for society licensing other relationships, the argument is society licensing relationships for all relationships between two people.
> Actually, there is a big difference – the latter have made a public, lifelong commitment that legally binds them together. That promise adds a big reinforcement to the stability of that household, which is in society’s interest for raising children, i.e. society’s future.
Ha! Ha! Yes! Married people stay together forever and ever! Those binds are never broken! Except for about 50% of the time.
>Again, nothing bans strong emotional bonds between people, so I think you are saying “love” when you really mean “sex”.
Again I know your religion has twisted sex into something to fear and loath but that’s your problem.
> Actually, people choose Hell.
I love this one! The abused wife defense. MY god’s a good god! He wouldn’t have thrown me into Hell if I didn’t make him! It’s all my fault that I had gay sex, my god just made me gay but that don’t mean I had to BE gay!
Regarding your objections to my various examples using the color-blind, the wheelchair-bound, twenty year-olds, etc.:
Once again, color-blind people can’t fly a plan because that would be dangerous. Gay marriage isn’t dangerous. I know it makes your god angry but since it doesn’t exist the danger is minimal.
>Actually, the scholarship example is the most apt one, rather than the silliest.
No it is very silly. A more apt example would be to say that by law no White person can be given a scholarship. Of course that would be silly so it doesn’t happen.
> are missing the procreative capacity and opposite-gender example for children that is the entire reason society adopted marriage in the first place.
Once again, you seem to be saying that if you can’t have children you can’t be married. Is that what you are saying?
>If you believe society adopted the institution of marriage for some other reason than the procreation and upbringing of children, then a statement of that would immensely help the gay marriage case.
Some people get married for that reason, some do not, it doesn’t matter why.
>It isn’t passage of property (we’ve had wills to do that for centuries)
Actually that is part of it and wills without marriage can be contested that much easier.
>and it isn’t because the church and/or state need to license peoples’ affections (unnecessary and even overbearing).
Sure it is.
>Your arguments are very emotional
I do get emotional in the face of bigotry it’s true but no, it’s a simple legal argument; you can’t deny people rights.
>I’m sorry you believe I “hate” anyone, but the term “hate” has largely lost its meaning due to overuse. Trust me, if I actually hated anyone, I wouldn’t use my real name on posts.
I know you have a bit of a cartoon view of the world but you do hate the gays, not in a Fred Phelps way but in a more subtle insidious way. See if you were indifferent to gays you wouldn’t care what they did but the idea of them getting married clearly upsets you to the point that you try and justify the hate by saying silly things about color-blind people not being pilots is just like gays not having children therefore they can’t get married.
>or at least, until the Last Judgment.
Yes, when your god comes and destroys its perfect world, kills everyone who doesn’t think as you do then builds a perfect world after.
Makes perfect sense you deeply silly person.
“Marriage is a contract between two people that grants certain rights and privileges recognized by the state. (…) It doesn’t matter that those right and privileges can be granted in different ways, everyone is equal or they are not under the law.”
Now we’re getting somewhere! So why is it that two sisters, a couple elderly cousins, etc. are treated unfairly under the law? Why must they go through the courts and fight to get tax exemptions, right of attorney, etc. What is “marriage” that allows some people to bypass the rigamarole and the onerous restrictions?
>Now we’re getting somewhere! So why is it that two sisters, a couple elderly cousins, etc. are treated unfairly under the law?
Well cousins can marry in many places, marginally distant ones in pretty much all. I was unaware of any cases of two sisters asking to be married, I don’t think that happens often enough for it to be of much concern.
I think I’ve explained more than a few times that there is no harm to same-sex marriage, there is no argument against it save for basic bigotry and that has no legal standing.
The argument about children is foolish as well, there is nothing in society that legally compels people to have children and it wouldn’t make sense to do so.
At any rate same-sex marriage is pretty much inevitable, the bigots are being slowly squeezed out just like with interracial marriage and other bits of fear based nonsense.
The guy you’re going to vote for? The Mormon? The GOP candidate? One of his major staff members is openly gay. Now could you imagine that 20 years ago? Certainly not 30 and beyond.
And somehow life continues but I’m sure your god is getting ready to flood the place once again.
“Well cousins can marry in many places, marginally distant ones in pretty much all. I was unaware of any cases of two sisters asking to be married, I don’t think that happens often enough for it to be of much concern. ”
Actually, prior to the sweep for same-sex marriage, there was a coalition of people who were working on domestic partnerships for various relationships, e.g. the elderly sisters cited above. The point of it was that there are many, many two-person relationships in which it would be beneficial for assets, medical coverage, etc. to be shared without multiple layers of legal and tax hoops. This would have been equitable, as well, since the personal relationships (whether familiar or sexual) would not have mattered in the determination of the partnership.
As for “it doesn’t happen very often” – that’s actually shooting your argument in the foot. As late as ’98, when the director of my local LGBT activity centre stepped down, there were few gay or lesbian couples asking to get married. I note the year because that particular director stepped down in part because she received so much grief for suggesting – as one wag put it – “sanctioned coupledom.”
“The argument about children is foolish as well, there is nothing in society that legally compels people to have children and it wouldn’t make sense to do so.”
I never said anything about children, nor about being a Republican (!?!), etc. But I am glad that your definition of “marriage” seems to be narrowing down a little. So now that you’ve explained that marriage shouldn’t be based on one’s reproductive organs, one’s sexual attraction, or a sexual relationship – can you please get down to brass tacks and define “marriage” for me?
I should mention, since it may not be clear: The director stepped down because the LGBT members opposed her vision of having domestic partnerships or anything that resembled bourgeois or “breeder” marriage.
And I do apologize to the Jester’s readers for using that offensive term, but that’s one of the descriptors bandied about.
>Actually, prior to the sweep for same-sex marriage, there was a coalition of people who were working on domestic partnerships for various relationships, e.g. the elderly sisters cited above.
Wow. A coalition of people! That’s not vague at all and a rock solid point as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Because someone someplace wanted to marry their sister. Or something.
>As for “it doesn’t happen very often” – that’s actually shooting your argument in the foot. As late as ’98, when the director of my local LGBT activity centre stepped down, t
I have no idea what you are babbling about here or what your point is.
Again, if they march on Washington, form lobbying groups and get a website I’d be willing to listen to their points. But I think this is typical “man on box-turtle” slippery slope nonsense that the anti-gay rights like to spew in place of reason.
>“The argument about children is foolish as well, there is nothing in society that legally compels people to have children and it wouldn’t make sense to do so.”
>I never said anything about children,
No, I was listing foolish arguments against gay marriage that have been made by other commentators, I was just heading you off at the pass.
It’s interesting that you addressed that point which was below this one:
I think I’ve explained more than a few times that there is no harm to same-sex marriage, there is no argument against it save for basic bigotry and that has no legal standing.
I like how you skipped over me calling you a bigot in favor of the children thing. Very telling.
>nor about being a Republican (!?!), etc
But you are one and my point was more about how even the right-wing, conservative Bible thumping GOP now has gays, how gays are becoming less and less of a big deal.
It’s also very telling the way you pick and choose what you understand.
> But I am glad that your definition of “marriage” seems to be narrowing down a little.
Huh? What are you talking about? My definition of “marriage” (the quotes mean what?) hasn’t changed a lick. Contract. Two-people. Specific rights and privileges. The end. The only way you can exclude gays if you think they are not people.
Do you think they are people?
>can you please get down to brass tacks and define “marriage” for me?
I have. Again. Several times in this thread. Are you dyslexic?
>I should mention, since it may not be clear:
Ya think?
>The director stepped down because the LGBT members opposed her vision of having domestic partnerships or anything that resembled bourgeois or “breeder” marriage.
So… because some gays didn’t want gays to be married a gay leader stepped down so gays shouldn’t be married? What are you talking about?
(((So… because some gays didn’t want gays to be married a gay leader stepped down so gays shouldn’t be married? What are you talking about?)))
That a tell them Jack! I’m starting to like your way of thinking because you say “IT” the way you see “IT” and we must all eat cause we’ve got about 97% cells who have not eaten for a long time NOW and these so called 3% “Jesus” cells of Victor are not satisfying U>S (usual sinners). Listen Jack we need another spiritual “Arm a getting” and we were close to “IT” but Victor decides to close down NOW but you have revived U>S by having indirectly given U>S a new found hope and faith that we, god’s children, can also eat of our fruits although we are limitted to where we can write about “IT” without being sensored. “I” agree with ya that when you indirectly say that the ones who opposed same-sex-marriages are nothing but a bunch of ASS Holes and I do apologize to the Jester’s readers for using that offensive term, but that’s one of the descriptors bandied about by Victor’s so called invisible black angels and like you, know what they are talking about! Ah yes! Victor would have tried to cover “IT” UP by using the term Annoying Super Sinners Helping Old Losers Everywhere but being “The Jack” that you are, we like you because you love gay people as much as you love straight people. You called “IT” all the way we, I mean the way you seen “IT” and when we owed about 99% of Victor’s body cells and he was the pup pit, “IT” was like that way for his so called “Jesus Cells” also. Anyway, after Victor spiritually succesfully killed himself in reality and then cried out for help during 7 days to His God, Go Figure but in reality, on the third day he got “IT” , his so called sanity back and “IT” gave U>S all such a vicious shake that we literally shook all over until we promised that we would let His Jesus Cells live in peace. Don’t tell any body but we manage to save face with the alien god cells, I mean reality, by telling every one that “IT” was the pills that alien doctors gave him to take that caused his shaking. Because we like you Jack! Whatever you do don’t look him in the eyes with hatred and ask him if he’s still taking his pills cause depending on who he sees in your eyes, he might just go and buy a polor bear for ya, if ya know what “I” mean. Jack, I want to thank ya for the little spiritual reality meat that you’ve obtained for U>S in the spiritual reality world and thanks to you we get Victor’s spiritual Wedding fingers and because of that we’ll be able to eat for a long time so says future cloning doctors of the dark force gods.
Like you Jack, I could go on and on but “I’M” not getting paid for this so why should we continue feeding these trolls? 🙂
Piece or is that
Peace?
..
Of course I KNOW that gays are people. I think it’s very telling that you don’t know anything about the real issue for non-religious, non-gay people: There was a movement in to have EQUITABLE domestic partnerships regardless of sexual attraction or familiar relationship.
Instead, gay and lesbian couples get tax exemptions, shared health benefits, and rights to property. Why not people who aren’t in a sexual relationship?
You can’t even define marriage, which is much more telling than any of the foolish invective you’ve thrown around. The reason I ignored it was that I mistakenly thought you were perhaps a reasonable person. Instead, you proved yourself to be a lot less tolerant and intelligent than the theists here.
Knock yourself out getting in the last word. I won’t be reading it.
“So… because some gays didn’t want gays to be married a gay leader stepped down so gays shouldn’t be married? What are you talking about?”
I’m talking about the fact that gays opposed marriage. Thought it was a waste that proves nothing about the validity of relationships and there was also the marriage penalty. The push for domestic partnerships started for established couples to have access to partner’s health care and to be able to inherit property without legal battles and exhorbitant taxes. Bonuses also included access to family housing if you were a student; e.g. Brown University offered gay and lesbian couples preferred housing on par with married couples in ’93.
>Of course I KNOW that gays are people.
Yet you think they shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a contract so I remain unconvinced that you do.
> There was a movement in to have EQUITABLE domestic partnerships regardless of sexual attraction or familiar relationship.
Oh. And that has what to do with same-sex marriage?
>Instead, gay and lesbian couples get tax exemptions, shared health benefits, and rights to property. Why not people who aren’t in a sexual relationship?
Because sex is part of marriage, I guess you never heard to the legal term “consummate”? Until the couple do it they’re not officially married. Most places will give an annulment if there hasn’t been any banging.
>You can’t even define marriage, which is much more telling than any of the foolish invective you’ve thrown around.
Except all the times in this thread where I defined marriage.
> Instead, you proved yourself to be a lot less tolerant and intelligent than the theists here.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am intolerant and dumb because I think gay couples should be allowed to marry and that people who don’t like gays shouldn’t be allowed to stop them.
>Knock yourself out getting in the last word. I won’t be reading it.
I don’t think you’ve been reading much of what I have posted here or at the very least understanding it so that’s probably best.
>I’m talking about the fact that gays opposed marriage.
Sure, some do, so what? They’re wrong too.
>Thought it was a waste that proves nothing about the validity of relationships and there was also the marriage penalty.
Well sure, you can say that about straight marriages too. Again, so what?
>The push for domestic partnerships started for established couples to have access to partner’s health care and to be able to inherit property without legal battles and exhorbitant taxes.
Yeah, good thing too.
>Bonuses also included access to family housing if you were a student; e.g. Brown University offered gay and lesbian couples preferred housing on par with married couples in ’93.
Awesome Brown, way to be ahead of the curve.
So what you seem to be saying is that because there are domestic partnership laws and some consideration from a university gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
I believe I’ve already covered the whole “separate but equal” thing.
See you can’t come up with any sort of coherent opposition to same-sex marriage, you can only throw out all this pointless chaff.
You don’t like gays, you don’t like society accepting gays, marriage is huge sign of acceptance and that is driving you, and others, mad.
It’s sad I know, people letting people live their lives despite it making your god super angry. It’s almost like they don’t even believe it’s there or cares about keeping gays out!